The Protest of the Thirty-One Mensheviks

Published:Proletary, No. 12, January 25, 1907.

      Published according to theProletarytext.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Foreign Languages Publishing House,1962,

      Moscow,Volume 12,

      pages29-32.Translated:Transcription\Markup:R. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      (2004).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

Wehave just received a pamphlet entitledWhy We Were Compelled To Leave the
Conference (Declaration Submitted to the Central Committee by 31 Members of the
Conference).

Init the Mensheviks do not saya single wordabout the principles
involved! Their defection from the workers’ party to the petty-bourgeois bloc
(the Mensheviks, the Socialist-Revolutionaries, the Trudoviks, and the Popular
Socialists), and thence to the Cadets, is evidently of no interest to the
proletariat. These protestants have no desire to discuss the real point at
issue, but dealonlywith formalities.

Letus examine their formal arguments. There are three of them: (1) The history
of the St. Petersburg Committee and its undemocratic organisation; (2) the
irregularities in the Conference’s endorsement of credentials; (3) the
refusal of the Conference to divide into two parts, one for the city and one for
the gubernia.

Onthe first point we should like to ask: what has the St. Petersburg Committee
to do with it?Specialelections were held for the Conference, were
they not?

Essentiallythe Mensheviks are tellingatrocious liesabout the
history of the St. Petersburg Committee and its alleged undemocratic
organisation. It is worth noting as a curiosity, for instance, that the Latvian
District (the inclusion of which the Mensheviks complain about), was includedbeforethe Unity Congress, that is, when there was anequalnumber of Bolsheviks and Mensheviks on t.he St. Petersburg Committee. More than
six months ago, there fore, the Mensheviks themselvesvoluntarilyagreed that it was correct to include the Letts. Or take another instance:the Mensheviks complain that the St. Petersburg Committee had allowed the
      co-optation of a certain number of members. They forget to add that it
      was theMensheviks themselvesthat had carried out the
    co-optation. These instances enable one to judge the fairness of this
    belated criticism of the way the St. Petersburg Committee was formed.

Theirsecond argument is that the Conference, if you please, committed
irregularities in endorsing the credentials. The Mensheviks refuse to recognise
the shop-assistants’ votes, andclaimthat the following distribution
of votes is the only correct one: Bolshevik—1,560, plus 180 in favour of
the platform of the revolutionary bloc—total,
1,740. Menshevik—1,589. Or credentials, counting those left
over:

Bolshevik—35; Menshevik—32 (see p. 8 of the Menshevik pamphlet).

Itremains for us only to emphasise thateven in the opinion of our
severest criticsthe Bolsheviks had,and were bound to have,
preponderanceat the Conference.

Everybodyknows, comrades, that the “dissenters” (the platform of
the revolutionary bloc) were also Bolsheviks. And since you yourselves admit
that the Bolsheviks would have had 35 credentials against 32even ifthe endorsement of the credentials depended on the Mensheviks, why make all this
fuss?

Youyourselves are compelled to admit that the St. Peters burg Social-Democratic
organisation is a Bolshevik body.

Butlet us seehowthe Mensheviks criticise the way in which the
credentials were verified at the Conference.

Theydo not want to consider the votes of the shop-assistants at all. Why?
“On the pretext that it was impossible to hold meetings,” says the
pamphlet, “the leading body of the shop-assistants, after an attempt to
take a referendum of its members, which resulted in only 100 votes being cast,
was authorised by the St. Petersburg Committee to elect five representatives,
allowing, no one knows why, one per 60 members, there being 313 organised
shop-assistants”... (p. 4).

Thedifficulty of organising a meeting of shop-assistants is common
knowledge. On what grounds is this called a “pretext”? On what grounds are
313organisedshop-assist ants (i.e., Party members) to be kept out?
Do you notadmit yourselves thatan attempt was made to take a referendum, i.e.,
that the leading body took steps to get all the members of the Party to express
their opinion?

Andby reducing the rate of representation from one per 50 to one per 60, the
St. Petersburg Committee admitted that the representation was not entirely
democratic.

MoscowDistrict: among the challenged votes the Mensheviks recognise 185
Bolshevik votes. But under the heading “Reasons for Challenging”,
the authors of the pamphletthemselveswrite literally the following:“Challenged tentatively, in case the Bolsheviks refuse to endorse
similar elections in another district.”

Isn’tthat good? The Mensheviks challenged the Bolshevik credentialstentatively, in case...!! In summing up theythemselvesstate
that “the number of votes that should really have been disqualified”
was 115, and not 300;i.e., they themselves admitthat 185should
have been endorsed!

Thus,the Menshevik methods consist in challenging “tentatively”
votes that really should be endorsed!

Andsuch people have the insolence to talk about irregular representation at
the Conference....

TheMensheviks themselves count the number ofincontestablevotes as
1,376 for theBolsheviksand 795 for theMensheviks.
And that means, my dear comrades, that even by adopting the unheard-of and
original method of “tentative challenging” youwere unableto challenge the bulk of the Bolshevik votes!

Ofthe 789 Menshevik votes challenged by the Bolsheviks (according to the
pamphlet) the 234 votes of the Vyborg District are of special importance. Under
the heading:

“Reasons for Challenging” we read: “The elections were not
carried out on the basis of platforms, although discussions were held.”
The fact that discussions were held does not prove in the least thatthe
voters themselvesspoke in favour of blocs with the Cadets, so that the
Conference was right in refusing to assign to the partisans of a bloc with the
Cadetsthose votesthat were not directly and unambiguously in favour
of it. The Conference reduced the representation for these 234 votes.

Further,the Bolsheviks challenged the 370 votes of the Franco-Russian
Subdistrict (City District). Under theheading: “Reasons for Challenging” we read: “Without
      platforms—100, and the remainder (270)—by two-stage elections
      with discussions.”

Yousee, the votes of the shop-assistants ought to have been disqualified
despite the “attempt to take a referendum”. All the Menshevik votes
ought to have been endorsed, despite thetwo-stage elections, which in
fact did not in the least differ from the method by which the shop-assistants
elected their representatives! No, Menshevik comrades, your defence of the
Menshevik credentials is very weak!

Asregards dividing the Conference, the Mensheviks refer to it very briefly:
“Although this proposal was perfectlyrational”, the
Conference rejected it (p. 5). But on the very next page the secret of its
“rationality” is indiscreetly revealed: “Within the precincts
of the city the Mensheviks had an overwhelming majority” (?!) (if the
votes were counted in the Menshevik fashion, i.e., if all the shop-assistants’
votes were eliminated and all the Franco Russian and Vyborg votes were
included!).

Sothat’s the game! Division was rational because it would have given the
Mensheviks a fictitious majority Simple, is it not? Why, then, comrades, did you
forget to mention what “rational” division you propose for theRailwayDistrict, for instance, and why the Central Committee did not
think itrationalto propose that the conferences atWilno,
Odessa, etc., be divided?

TheMenshevik protests over formalities are empty and trivial quibbling. What is
serious is their decision to desert to the Cadets. But the 31 protestants are
absolutely silent about that.